Build cache extension release

[Olivier Lamy]

Hi,
I'd like to release the build cache extension in the coming days.
If someone has something to merge or fix please let me know/

cheers
Olivier

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

[Manfred Moser]

+1

Totally also agree with upping to Java 17.

Working mostly on Trino these days and we have been on 17 for quite a 
while and are getting ready to go to 21 soon after it hits. In my 
opinion Maven should do the same. There should be no reason not to 
support and also default to the latest LTS.


Ultimately users who are good with using old JDK should also be good 
with using an old build tool and an old IDE and so on..


And of course they also want to use old dependencies with many nice 
security issues... so lets enable them to stop this by making the usage 
of old stuff even more painful.


Manfred

On 2023-05-31 03:00, Tamás Cservenák wrote:

+1 for the move to Java 17 with Maven 4 (am actually for "move to latest
current Java LTS")

As anyone can see, all the major (OSS) projects did or are in the middle of
pushing for Java 17.
In September we have Java 21. The Java release cadence has changed, and it
did not change yesterday, but a long time ago, so users should live with it.

T

On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 10:30 AM Guillaume Nodet  wrote:


I'd like to resume this discussion about switching master to require JDK
17.

These past days, I've been working on improving the usage of toolchains
(first inside maven, but now completely in the maven-toolchains-plugin)
with [1].  If we want to go further, we could simplify the selection by
modifying the POM somehow to add a specific section, but I suspect most
people will just use the release flag on the compiler to target bytecode.
The only downside I see, beyond the additional configuration (though the
goal is that users don't really have to generate/maintain the toolchains)
is that the selection of the toolchain is done during the build, so that
JDK profile based activation can not be used.  Note that the use of
environment variables is also another way to work around, for example in
github [2].

I think with those improvements, requiring JDK 17 for master should be
doable.  Any concerns of suggestions ?

Cheers,
Guillaume

[1] https://github.com/apache/maven-toolchains-plugin/pull/14
[2]

https://github.com/B3Partners/kadaster-gds2/blob/b0cd5c392bc1f48dec11c83c828254a868264467/.github/ubuntu-toolchains.xml

Le mar. 19 juil. 2022 à 18:25, Karl Heinz Marbaise  a
écrit :


Hi to all,

what do you think about using JDK17 as minimum requirement for running
the future Apache Maven 4.0.0 ?

Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org



--

Guillaume Nodet



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Maven Release Plugin version 3.0.1

[Guillaume Nodet]

+1

Le mar. 30 mai 2023 à 23:35, Slawomir Jaranowski  a
écrit :

> Hi,
>
> We solved 8 issues:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12317824=12353136
>
> There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20MRELEASE%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved
>
>
> Staging repo:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-1950/
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-1950/org/apache/maven/release/maven-release/3.0.1/maven-release-3.0.1-source-release.zip
>
> Source release checksum(s):
> maven-release-3.0.1-source-release.zip - SHA-512:
>
> e59018a70e67f8af38f4d02bc28703f54ec01d032bd9d21972d087bb196ed8997040da0600a687d5604ebed794ab444d67b697ae17f793f0e8908a4ca0a37f69
>
>
> Staging site:
>
> https://maven.apache.org/components/maven-release-archives/maven-release-LATEST
>
> Guide to testing staged releases:
> https://maven.apache.org/guides/development/guide-testing-releases.html
>
> Vote open for at least 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1
>
> --
> Sławomir Jaranowski
>


-- 

Guillaume Nodet

Re: [VOTE] Release Maven Project Info Reports Plugin version 3.4.4

[Michael Osipov]

Please take care of all open JIRA issues which you have already merged.

On 2023/05/26 19:47:38 Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> There's some dependency cleanup that could be done in this project. a
> couple of artifacts should be test scope and also updated to the
> latest versions, perhaps a few other things
> 
> On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 3:29 PM Michael Osipov  wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > we solved 6 issues:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12317821=12353222
> >
> > There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/MPIR/issues
> >
> > Staging repo:
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-1948/
> > https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-1948/org/apache/maven/plugins/maven-project-info-reports-plugin/3.4.4/maven-project-info-reports-plugin-3.4.4-source-release.zip
> >
> > Source release checksum(s):
> > maven-project-info-reports-plugin-3.4.4-source-release.zip
> > sha512:
> > c5803f9c7165ca1277e2952bc04eb0b30d9d2b1972e89bb90ac0611ddf3c1062aaea964f4484ba45ecf7780a77ae141f7cd9773edd402c48ff19b8fc25e5344b
> >
> > Staging site:
> > https://maven.apache.org/plugins-archives/maven-project-info-reports-plugin-LATEST/
> >
> > Guide to testing staged releases:
> > https://maven.apache.org/guides/development/guide-testing-releases.html
> >
> > Vote open for 72 hours.
> >
> > [ ] +1
> > [ ] +0
> > [ ] -1
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Elliotte Rusty Harold
> elh...@ibiblio.org
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> 
> 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

[Michael Osipov]

I also would like to point out that OpenJDK 8 support will surpass 11 by 2030: 
https://endoflife.date/java

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Maven Release Plugin version 3.0.1

[Jeremy Landis]

Renovate is a better alternative to dependabot and usually finds items deeper 
in builds such as IT tests with basically zero config and a nice issue tracker 
right on github showing full content of repo, anything team declined, etc.  If 
you happen to check out mybatis repos, you can see it in action.  Dependabot 
for security alerts will still work behind scenes otherwise.

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Get Outlook for Android

From: Elliotte Rusty Harold 
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 7:33:47 AM
To: Maven Developers List 
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Maven Release Plugin version 3.0.1

FYI, there seem to be some issues with dependabot configs. It's useful
when it fires, but it doesn't always, and sometimes it closes update
PRs for no valid reason I can discern.

And of course there are the more complex updates that can require more
than a simple number change in a pom.xml like
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fmaven-surefire%2Fpull%2F652=05%7C01%7C%7C3a3db68483ab49c23c2908db61cb1b66%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638211297190092716%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=AQO3sJzqStxUXB8SyqhxQQRoWoFxoDur46p0TpynxOo%3D=0
 which I still
haven't fully debugged

On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 11:25 AM Jeremy Landis  wrote:
>
> Common thread I keep seeing.  Update all the libraries!  ...the common 
> thread..   No concern on this one but maven does still release vulnerable 
> plugin usage especially around transient commons collections.  We keep 
> patching so it's also frustrating the speed of plugin releases that are not 
> accounting for already available pull requests only to see core team make 
> this argument each release recently...
>
> I think in general, same I tell my devs. Review the bot pull requests and 
> incorporate all the ones possible before any release.
>
> Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
> Get Outlook for 
> Android>
> 
> From: Elliotte Rusty Harold 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 7:09:22 AM
> To: Maven Developers List 
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Maven Release Plugin version 3.0.1
>
> One minor dependency update to maven-scm:
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fmaven-release%2Fpull%2F192=05%7C01%7C%7C3a3db68483ab49c23c2908db61cb1b66%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638211297190092716%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=bYhPHbuMm%2BtJho7sSqf0ce4fB0N%2Bc%2Bn8ngEFSs2PEHY%3D=0
>
> Otherwise, looks good.
>
> On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 9:35 PM Slawomir Jaranowski
>  wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > We solved 8 issues:
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fissues.apache.org%2Fjira%2Fsecure%2FReleaseNote.jspa%3FprojectId%3D12317824%26version%3D12353136=05%7C01%7C%7C3a3db68483ab49c23c2908db61cb1b66%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638211297190092716%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=J8pRnyjaXcpmbcIS4ESCKc5OR%2FBWUSOEIEIPBaFbFFU%3D=0
> >
> > There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA:
> > 

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

[Niels Basjes]

Hi all,

>From my perspective having Java 17 as the minimal runtime for maven itself
is fine.
I have several projects that need to produce Java 8 binaries and I have
been running all my builds with Java 17 for quite some time now.
The toolchains setup works fine for all use cases I have seen so far.

Some of the effects I have noticed:
- I can run these builds with Maven running on Java 17 and then build the
various modules with any JDK (8,11,17) I need for the specific module.
- I can run a each IT in a different JDK to ensure the needed compatibility
(JPMS and such). In this test project I also have a Multi JDK module where
I then run the same IT on each of the configured JDKs.
- There is no need for doing the matrix builds (i.e. re run the entire
build with different JDK versions) as I see in many projects

I have a minimalistic test project in which I have experimented with all of
this a while ago.
https://github.com/nielsbasjes/ToolChainsInCiBuilds
This also shows how to build a project like this on both Github and Gitlab.

Niels Basjes







On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 5:27 PM Christoph Läubrich 
wrote:

> That one needs java to *RUN* maven is an implementation detail for me
> and the actual java version do not matter.
>
> At best maven would ship with whatever JVM is required, or has a
> launcher that downloads one or ... e.g. for Eclipse IDE (and other
> software as well) one simply downloads a package (maybe with installer)
> that is specific for a platform, so the same could work for maven, so
> simply ship a "maven-runtime-jvm" with it...
>
> Then there is java used for *COMPILE* and with the -release flags today
> this does not matter much either and the maven-compiler-plugin should
> offer whatever suffice to find/use the best to compile.
>
> Then there might be java used to *RUN/TEST* an application where one
> might want to test several ones or a specific one, but this is then best
> configured separately from RUN maven or COMPILE code jdks...
>
> Of course it is *CONVENIENT* to use the same java for each of the cases,
> but its not a requirement, and maybe one should just make it more
> convenient to use different JVMs for the different cases ... So if I
> configure my test to run on java 8, maven should simply either find or
> download a suitable JVM (maybe from maven central), if I have very
> special requirements on the actual JVM vendor or version one can still
> configure it explicitly, but I would assume that for > 99% it is simply
> irrelevant if its Adpotium, OpenJDK, Oracle, Azul, ... whatever, all
> that counts is it is a Java 1.8 so I can say I have tested it with (one)
> Java 1.8 compliant JVM! And i should not need any setup (beside
> downloading maven).
>
> To some extend, maven can even ship with a JDK8, 11, 17 and 21 out of
> the box!
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>
>

-- 
Best regards / Met vriendelijke groeten,

Niels Basjes

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

[Christoph Läubrich]

That one needs java to *RUN* maven is an implementation detail for me 
and the actual java version do not matter.


At best maven would ship with whatever JVM is required, or has a 
launcher that downloads one or ... e.g. for Eclipse IDE (and other 
software as well) one simply downloads a package (maybe with installer) 
that is specific for a platform, so the same could work for maven, so 
simply ship a "maven-runtime-jvm" with it...


Then there is java used for *COMPILE* and with the -release flags today 
this does not matter much either and the maven-compiler-plugin should 
offer whatever suffice to find/use the best to compile.


Then there might be java used to *RUN/TEST* an application where one 
might want to test several ones or a specific one, but this is then best 
configured separately from RUN maven or COMPILE code jdks...


Of course it is *CONVENIENT* to use the same java for each of the cases, 
but its not a requirement, and maybe one should just make it more 
convenient to use different JVMs for the different cases ... So if I 
configure my test to run on java 8, maven should simply either find or 
download a suitable JVM (maybe from maven central), if I have very 
special requirements on the actual JVM vendor or version one can still 
configure it explicitly, but I would assume that for > 99% it is simply 
irrelevant if its Adpotium, OpenJDK, Oracle, Azul, ... whatever, all 
that counts is it is a Java 1.8 so I can say I have tested it with (one) 
Java 1.8 compliant JVM! And i should not need any setup (beside 
downloading maven).


To some extend, maven can even ship with a JDK8, 11, 17 and 21 out of 
the box!


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

[Nikita Skvortsov]

These are JDKs used as "Module JDK".
These are JDKs that compile the source code or run the tests (as the
default option). Regardless of the language level setting.

So the first line reads like this:
"Among IntelliJ Ultimate users with Maven projects, 49.1% have at least one
module that is compiled using JDK8"

-- 
Nikita Skvortsov
Software Developer
JetBrains
http://www.jetbrains.com
The Drive to Develop


ср, 31 мая 2023 г. в 16:03, Tamás Cservenák :

> Thank you!
> But I have a problem understanding this info
> AFAIK, IDEA embeds Java "that runs on".
> So what is this, targeted platforms? (like maven.compiler.release?)
> Or JDKs registered in IDE used for projects?
>
> Thanks
> T
>
> On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 4:00 PM Nikita Skvortsov
>  wrote:
>
> > > sure, it would be nice to see those numbers... :)
> >
> > Here we go.
> > The numbers below are for users who have Maven projects.
> > Please note that the same user can report multiple JDKs, so numbers do
> not
> > add up to 100.
> >
> > For IntelliJ Ultimate, the Top 5 JDK versions are:
> > 8  - 49.1%
> > 17 - 37.4%
> > 11 - 27.2%
> > 20 - 10.5%
> > 19 - 9.7%
> >
> > For IntelliJ Community, the Top 5 JDK versions are:
> > 17 - 31.8%
> > 8  - 31.8%
> > 11 - 24.6%
> > 20 - 20.1%
> > 19 - 10.8%
> >
> > Let me know if you are interested in other data or have any other
> questions
> > about Maven integration in IntelliJ IDEA
> > Best regards,
> > --
> > Nikita Skvortsov
> > Software Developer
> > JetBrains
> > http://www.jetbrains.com
> > The Drive to Develop
> >
> >
> > ср, 31 мая 2023 г. в 14:32, Tamás Cservenák :
> >
> > > Howdy Nikita,
> > >
> > > sure, it would be nice to see those numbers... :)
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Tamas
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 2:25 PM Nikita Skvortsov
> > >  wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Do we have some download stats (not a poll) - maybe on sdkman or
> some
> > > jdk
> > > > > vendors side?
> > > >
> > > > Dear Maven team,
> > > >
> > > > Would it help you to make the decision if you have usage statistics
> of
> > > JDK
> > > > 17 among IntelliJ IDEA Maven users?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Nikita Skvortsov
> > > > Software Developer
> > > > JetBrains
> > > > http://www.jetbrains.com
> > > > The Drive to Develop
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ср, 31 мая 2023 г. в 11:43, Romain Manni-Bucau <
> rmannibu...@gmail.com
> > >:
> > > >
> > > > > Do we have some download stats (not a poll) - maybe on sdkman or
> some
> > > jdk
> > > > > vendors side?
> > > > > Recently I saw (with customers I'm working on) the java 17 adoption
> > > being
> > > > > quite large and since people stucked to 3.9 will be covered for
> java
> > 8
> > > I
> > > > > think it could be sane to switch *master* if we can validate with
> > > actual
> > > > > figures (with little bias) that java 17 is >= 50% (being said the
> > > forward
> > > > > way is it will only increase).
> > > > >
> > > > > Side note: I'm not sure toolchain workaround is of any help there
> > since
> > > > the
> > > > > main case will likely stay "use the contextual one and I don't have
> > > > others
> > > > > to offer you".
> > > > >
> > > > > So overall, if we can find some convergence that java 17 is getting
> > > > widely
> > > > > adopted I would be to switch now fo rmaven 4 without any toolchain
> > > hack.
> > > > >
> > > > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > > @rmannibucau  |  Blog
> > > > >  | Old Blog
> > > > >  | Github <
> > > > > https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> > > > > LinkedIn  | Book
> > > > > <
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Le mer. 31 mai 2023 à 11:21, Michael Osipov 
> a
> > > > écrit
> > > > > :
> > > > >
> > > > > > > I think with those improvements, requiring JDK 17 for master
> > should
> > > > be
> > > > > > > doable.  Any concerns of suggestions ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am against this. There are enough people who cannot move to
> Java
> > 17
> > > > for
> > > > > > a plethora of reasons regardless of Toolchains support. We
> provide
> > a
> > > > low
> > > > > > level tool and it should have a low barrier to use. Maven 4
> should
> > be
> > > > > used
> > > > > > as a transitional version to 5 to cut old ties and solve many
> > issues
> > > --
> > > > > > even if we are in alpha phase now.
> > > > > > I bet many people will stick for 3.9.x or even 3.8.x for the
> years
> > to
> > > > > come.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > M
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > -
> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: GH issues and GH discussions

[Christofer Dutz]

Hi all,

I really like GH issues and discussions ... they lower the bar for contribution 
quite a bit and feel a lot more inviting for newer contributors. At least have 
we seen a significant increase in contributions since we switched to GH Issues 
and are currently starting to use GH Discussions in PLC4X.

And I should mention that I just recently had an Apache Infra PR of mine 
merged, which make it possible to format the subjects of the auto-generated GH 
emails to make them usable in normal email clients (Pior to that merge, the GH 
Discusssion emails were not configurable)

I documented the settings we use quite successfully in PLC4X and StreamPipes 
here:
https://github.com/apache/comdev-site/blob/main/source/contributors/mailing-lists.md

Hope that helps,

Chrs




From: Benjamin Marwell 
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2023 5:04:51 PM
To: Maven Developers List 
Subject: Re: GH issues and GH discussions

I am pretty sure if that happens (terms changes, GH not an
option), we have plenty of time to migrate.
The same has happened multiple times in the past: SourceForge, BerliOS,
Google Code...
Now it is ASF JIRA and maybe some day we will be migrating away from GitHub
Issues to something else?

But even then, there will be an archive and there will be a migration tool.
None of the above migrations
lost any data AFAIK.

Am Sa., 27. Mai 2023 um 11:24 Uhr schrieb Łukasz Dywicki <
l...@code-house.org>:

> I have no strong feelings, however relying too much on single service
> vendor is never a good idea. In this case if one day, by some
> terms changes, github repos are not an option any more, we are
> fine with ASF infrastructure. But we can't do same thing for issues
> which are embedded in GH database. If you ever found a google code
> project migrated into github/gitlab issues you know what I mean.
>
> While policies imposed on JIRA account creation, are without doubt a
> bearer to contribute first bug report, JIRA itself helps us keeping all
> ASF information together. Just to be clear - I keep being lost with new
> JIRA user interface, I'm just reflecting my personal thoughts.
>
> Best,
> Łukasz
>
>

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

[Tamás Cservenák]

Thank you!
But I have a problem understanding this info
AFAIK, IDEA embeds Java "that runs on".
So what is this, targeted platforms? (like maven.compiler.release?)
Or JDKs registered in IDE used for projects?

Thanks
T

On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 4:00 PM Nikita Skvortsov
 wrote:

> > sure, it would be nice to see those numbers... :)
>
> Here we go.
> The numbers below are for users who have Maven projects.
> Please note that the same user can report multiple JDKs, so numbers do not
> add up to 100.
>
> For IntelliJ Ultimate, the Top 5 JDK versions are:
> 8  - 49.1%
> 17 - 37.4%
> 11 - 27.2%
> 20 - 10.5%
> 19 - 9.7%
>
> For IntelliJ Community, the Top 5 JDK versions are:
> 17 - 31.8%
> 8  - 31.8%
> 11 - 24.6%
> 20 - 20.1%
> 19 - 10.8%
>
> Let me know if you are interested in other data or have any other questions
> about Maven integration in IntelliJ IDEA
> Best regards,
> --
> Nikita Skvortsov
> Software Developer
> JetBrains
> http://www.jetbrains.com
> The Drive to Develop
>
>
> ср, 31 мая 2023 г. в 14:32, Tamás Cservenák :
>
> > Howdy Nikita,
> >
> > sure, it would be nice to see those numbers... :)
> >
> > Thanks
> > Tamas
> >
> > On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 2:25 PM Nikita Skvortsov
> >  wrote:
> >
> > > > Do we have some download stats (not a poll) - maybe on sdkman or some
> > jdk
> > > > vendors side?
> > >
> > > Dear Maven team,
> > >
> > > Would it help you to make the decision if you have usage statistics of
> > JDK
> > > 17 among IntelliJ IDEA Maven users?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Nikita Skvortsov
> > > Software Developer
> > > JetBrains
> > > http://www.jetbrains.com
> > > The Drive to Develop
> > >
> > >
> > > ср, 31 мая 2023 г. в 11:43, Romain Manni-Bucau  >:
> > >
> > > > Do we have some download stats (not a poll) - maybe on sdkman or some
> > jdk
> > > > vendors side?
> > > > Recently I saw (with customers I'm working on) the java 17 adoption
> > being
> > > > quite large and since people stucked to 3.9 will be covered for java
> 8
> > I
> > > > think it could be sane to switch *master* if we can validate with
> > actual
> > > > figures (with little bias) that java 17 is >= 50% (being said the
> > forward
> > > > way is it will only increase).
> > > >
> > > > Side note: I'm not sure toolchain workaround is of any help there
> since
> > > the
> > > > main case will likely stay "use the contextual one and I don't have
> > > others
> > > > to offer you".
> > > >
> > > > So overall, if we can find some convergence that java 17 is getting
> > > widely
> > > > adopted I would be to switch now fo rmaven 4 without any toolchain
> > hack.
> > > >
> > > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > > @rmannibucau  |  Blog
> > > >  | Old Blog
> > > >  | Github <
> > > > https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> > > > LinkedIn  | Book
> > > > <
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Le mer. 31 mai 2023 à 11:21, Michael Osipov  a
> > > écrit
> > > > :
> > > >
> > > > > > I think with those improvements, requiring JDK 17 for master
> should
> > > be
> > > > > > doable.  Any concerns of suggestions ?
> > > > >
> > > > > I am against this. There are enough people who cannot move to Java
> 17
> > > for
> > > > > a plethora of reasons regardless of Toolchains support. We provide
> a
> > > low
> > > > > level tool and it should have a low barrier to use. Maven 4 should
> be
> > > > used
> > > > > as a transitional version to 5 to cut old ties and solve many
> issues
> > --
> > > > > even if we are in alpha phase now.
> > > > > I bet many people will stick for 3.9.x or even 3.8.x for the years
> to
> > > > come.
> > > > >
> > > > > M
> > > > >
> > > > >
> -
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

[Nikita Skvortsov]

> sure, it would be nice to see those numbers... :)

Here we go.
The numbers below are for users who have Maven projects.
Please note that the same user can report multiple JDKs, so numbers do not
add up to 100.

For IntelliJ Ultimate, the Top 5 JDK versions are:
8  - 49.1%
17 - 37.4%
11 - 27.2%
20 - 10.5%
19 - 9.7%

For IntelliJ Community, the Top 5 JDK versions are:
17 - 31.8%
8  - 31.8%
11 - 24.6%
20 - 20.1%
19 - 10.8%

Let me know if you are interested in other data or have any other questions
about Maven integration in IntelliJ IDEA
Best regards,
-- 
Nikita Skvortsov
Software Developer
JetBrains
http://www.jetbrains.com
The Drive to Develop


ср, 31 мая 2023 г. в 14:32, Tamás Cservenák :

> Howdy Nikita,
>
> sure, it would be nice to see those numbers... :)
>
> Thanks
> Tamas
>
> On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 2:25 PM Nikita Skvortsov
>  wrote:
>
> > > Do we have some download stats (not a poll) - maybe on sdkman or some
> jdk
> > > vendors side?
> >
> > Dear Maven team,
> >
> > Would it help you to make the decision if you have usage statistics of
> JDK
> > 17 among IntelliJ IDEA Maven users?
> >
> > --
> > Nikita Skvortsov
> > Software Developer
> > JetBrains
> > http://www.jetbrains.com
> > The Drive to Develop
> >
> >
> > ср, 31 мая 2023 г. в 11:43, Romain Manni-Bucau :
> >
> > > Do we have some download stats (not a poll) - maybe on sdkman or some
> jdk
> > > vendors side?
> > > Recently I saw (with customers I'm working on) the java 17 adoption
> being
> > > quite large and since people stucked to 3.9 will be covered for java 8
> I
> > > think it could be sane to switch *master* if we can validate with
> actual
> > > figures (with little bias) that java 17 is >= 50% (being said the
> forward
> > > way is it will only increase).
> > >
> > > Side note: I'm not sure toolchain workaround is of any help there since
> > the
> > > main case will likely stay "use the contextual one and I don't have
> > others
> > > to offer you".
> > >
> > > So overall, if we can find some convergence that java 17 is getting
> > widely
> > > adopted I would be to switch now fo rmaven 4 without any toolchain
> hack.
> > >
> > > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > > @rmannibucau  |  Blog
> > >  | Old Blog
> > >  | Github <
> > > https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> > > LinkedIn  | Book
> > > <
> > >
> >
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Le mer. 31 mai 2023 à 11:21, Michael Osipov  a
> > écrit
> > > :
> > >
> > > > > I think with those improvements, requiring JDK 17 for master should
> > be
> > > > > doable.  Any concerns of suggestions ?
> > > >
> > > > I am against this. There are enough people who cannot move to Java 17
> > for
> > > > a plethora of reasons regardless of Toolchains support. We provide a
> > low
> > > > level tool and it should have a low barrier to use. Maven 4 should be
> > > used
> > > > as a transitional version to 5 to cut old ties and solve many issues
> --
> > > > even if we are in alpha phase now.
> > > > I bet many people will stick for 3.9.x or even 3.8.x for the years to
> > > come.
> > > >
> > > > M
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

Think whatever version we release we must meet the most common version for
project starting when release is around, as of today - and even in a year -
it will not be 21 but 17 AFAIK so 17 looks natural if we intend to have a
4.0.0 < 2 yearselse 21 is very relevant.
Anything else goes legacy on what is already there and does not help much
to decide IMHO.

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau  |  Blog
 | Old Blog
 | Github  |
LinkedIn  | Book



Le mer. 31 mai 2023 à 14:38, Tamás Cservenák  a écrit :

> Good question! :D
>
>
> On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 2:34 PM Delany  wrote:
>
> > Excuse my ignorance but what do customer requirements have to do with the
> > build tool's required JDK?
> > Delany
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 31 May 2023 at 13:57, Elliotte Rusty Harold 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 8:30 AM Guillaume Nodet 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think with those improvements, requiring JDK 17 for master should
> be
> > > > doable.  Any concerns of suggestions ?
> > >
> > > Hard no from me. JDK 8 is still very much in use, and is my day-to-day
> > > VM. I switch to 11 when I have to, and I don't anticipate switching to
> > > 17 for years unless I decide to write another book.
> > >
> > > When I left Google and GCP about a year ago, we still had customer
> > > requirements for quite old versions. From the public docs it looks
> > > like they still support Java 8 and sometimes Java 7.
> > >
> > > I know of multiple companies where the migration to Java 11 is still
> > > in progress. Some companies are also sticking to Java 8 for likely the
> > > remainder of my career. JPMS in Java 9 caused a lot of problems for
> > > weakly supported libraries and many devs can't or won't upgrade past
> > > Java 8 for that reason.
> > >
> > > Slow and steady wins the race. Java 8 is a perfectly fine VM, and
> > > Maven really doesn't need anything more right now. I think we'll get
> > > to Java 11 eventually. but that's still a few years down the road and
> > > there's a lot of cleanup work to be done first. Just today I sent a PR
> > > to replace some utility methods we haven't needed since Java *1.4*.
> > > When there's some improvement we really can't make without updating to
> > > Java 11 is when we should consider switching. So far I don't see any
> > > critical need for it though.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Elliotte Rusty Harold
> > > elh...@ibiblio.org
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

[Tamás Cservenák]

Good question! :D


On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 2:34 PM Delany  wrote:

> Excuse my ignorance but what do customer requirements have to do with the
> build tool's required JDK?
> Delany
>
>
> On Wed, 31 May 2023 at 13:57, Elliotte Rusty Harold 
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 8:30 AM Guillaume Nodet 
> wrote:
> >
> > > I think with those improvements, requiring JDK 17 for master should be
> > > doable.  Any concerns of suggestions ?
> >
> > Hard no from me. JDK 8 is still very much in use, and is my day-to-day
> > VM. I switch to 11 when I have to, and I don't anticipate switching to
> > 17 for years unless I decide to write another book.
> >
> > When I left Google and GCP about a year ago, we still had customer
> > requirements for quite old versions. From the public docs it looks
> > like they still support Java 8 and sometimes Java 7.
> >
> > I know of multiple companies where the migration to Java 11 is still
> > in progress. Some companies are also sticking to Java 8 for likely the
> > remainder of my career. JPMS in Java 9 caused a lot of problems for
> > weakly supported libraries and many devs can't or won't upgrade past
> > Java 8 for that reason.
> >
> > Slow and steady wins the race. Java 8 is a perfectly fine VM, and
> > Maven really doesn't need anything more right now. I think we'll get
> > to Java 11 eventually. but that's still a few years down the road and
> > there's a lot of cleanup work to be done first. Just today I sent a PR
> > to replace some utility methods we haven't needed since Java *1.4*.
> > When there's some improvement we really can't make without updating to
> > Java 11 is when we should consider switching. So far I don't see any
> > critical need for it though.
> >
> > --
> > Elliotte Rusty Harold
> > elh...@ibiblio.org
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

[Gary Gregory]

(Non-binding chatter) I'm ok with Java 17 but since M4 feels like it's not
around the corner,  why not go for Java 21-EA and possibly learn even more
cool tech. Surely Java 21 which is an LTS version will be released as GA
before M4.

Gary

On Wed, May 31, 2023, 04:30 Guillaume Nodet  wrote:

> I'd like to resume this discussion about switching master to require JDK
> 17.
>
> These past days, I've been working on improving the usage of toolchains
> (first inside maven, but now completely in the maven-toolchains-plugin)
> with [1].  If we want to go further, we could simplify the selection by
> modifying the POM somehow to add a specific section, but I suspect most
> people will just use the release flag on the compiler to target bytecode.
> The only downside I see, beyond the additional configuration (though the
> goal is that users don't really have to generate/maintain the toolchains)
> is that the selection of the toolchain is done during the build, so that
> JDK profile based activation can not be used.  Note that the use of
> environment variables is also another way to work around, for example in
> github [2].
>
> I think with those improvements, requiring JDK 17 for master should be
> doable.  Any concerns of suggestions ?
>
> Cheers,
> Guillaume
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/maven-toolchains-plugin/pull/14
> [2]
>
> https://github.com/B3Partners/kadaster-gds2/blob/b0cd5c392bc1f48dec11c83c828254a868264467/.github/ubuntu-toolchains.xml
>
> Le mar. 19 juil. 2022 à 18:25, Karl Heinz Marbaise  a
> écrit :
>
> > Hi to all,
> >
> > what do you think about using JDK17 as minimum requirement for running
> > the future Apache Maven 4.0.0 ?
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Karl Heinz Marbaise
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> --
> 
> Guillaume Nodet
>

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

[Delany]

Excuse my ignorance but what do customer requirements have to do with the
build tool's required JDK?
Delany


On Wed, 31 May 2023 at 13:57, Elliotte Rusty Harold 
wrote:

> On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 8:30 AM Guillaume Nodet  wrote:
>
> > I think with those improvements, requiring JDK 17 for master should be
> > doable.  Any concerns of suggestions ?
>
> Hard no from me. JDK 8 is still very much in use, and is my day-to-day
> VM. I switch to 11 when I have to, and I don't anticipate switching to
> 17 for years unless I decide to write another book.
>
> When I left Google and GCP about a year ago, we still had customer
> requirements for quite old versions. From the public docs it looks
> like they still support Java 8 and sometimes Java 7.
>
> I know of multiple companies where the migration to Java 11 is still
> in progress. Some companies are also sticking to Java 8 for likely the
> remainder of my career. JPMS in Java 9 caused a lot of problems for
> weakly supported libraries and many devs can't or won't upgrade past
> Java 8 for that reason.
>
> Slow and steady wins the race. Java 8 is a perfectly fine VM, and
> Maven really doesn't need anything more right now. I think we'll get
> to Java 11 eventually. but that's still a few years down the road and
> there's a lot of cleanup work to be done first. Just today I sent a PR
> to replace some utility methods we haven't needed since Java *1.4*.
> When there's some improvement we really can't make without updating to
> Java 11 is when we should consider switching. So far I don't see any
> critical need for it though.
>
> --
> Elliotte Rusty Harold
> elh...@ibiblio.org
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>
>

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

[Tamás Cservenák]

Howdy Nikita,

sure, it would be nice to see those numbers... :)

Thanks
Tamas

On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 2:25 PM Nikita Skvortsov
 wrote:

> > Do we have some download stats (not a poll) - maybe on sdkman or some jdk
> > vendors side?
>
> Dear Maven team,
>
> Would it help you to make the decision if you have usage statistics of JDK
> 17 among IntelliJ IDEA Maven users?
>
> --
> Nikita Skvortsov
> Software Developer
> JetBrains
> http://www.jetbrains.com
> The Drive to Develop
>
>
> ср, 31 мая 2023 г. в 11:43, Romain Manni-Bucau :
>
> > Do we have some download stats (not a poll) - maybe on sdkman or some jdk
> > vendors side?
> > Recently I saw (with customers I'm working on) the java 17 adoption being
> > quite large and since people stucked to 3.9 will be covered for java 8 I
> > think it could be sane to switch *master* if we can validate with actual
> > figures (with little bias) that java 17 is >= 50% (being said the forward
> > way is it will only increase).
> >
> > Side note: I'm not sure toolchain workaround is of any help there since
> the
> > main case will likely stay "use the contextual one and I don't have
> others
> > to offer you".
> >
> > So overall, if we can find some convergence that java 17 is getting
> widely
> > adopted I would be to switch now fo rmaven 4 without any toolchain hack.
> >
> > Romain Manni-Bucau
> > @rmannibucau  |  Blog
> >  | Old Blog
> >  | Github <
> > https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> > LinkedIn  | Book
> > <
> >
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> > >
> >
> >
> > Le mer. 31 mai 2023 à 11:21, Michael Osipov  a
> écrit
> > :
> >
> > > > I think with those improvements, requiring JDK 17 for master should
> be
> > > > doable.  Any concerns of suggestions ?
> > >
> > > I am against this. There are enough people who cannot move to Java 17
> for
> > > a plethora of reasons regardless of Toolchains support. We provide a
> low
> > > level tool and it should have a low barrier to use. Maven 4 should be
> > used
> > > as a transitional version to 5 to cut old ties and solve many issues --
> > > even if we are in alpha phase now.
> > > I bet many people will stick for 3.9.x or even 3.8.x for the years to
> > come.
> > >
> > > M
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

[Tamás Cservenák]

On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 1:59 PM Elliotte Rusty Harold 
wrote:

> That's not really true. Short of a complete fork, new versions can't
> go out without effort from PMC members. Users cannot effectively
> self-serve here.
>

That's not what Guillaume said. Nobody mentioned "self serve".
Simply put, any interested party can provide PRs against 3.8 or 3.9
branches, and ultimately can ask any of the PMCs to perform a release. Game
is free for all, that's all.

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

[Nikita Skvortsov]

> Do we have some download stats (not a poll) - maybe on sdkman or some jdk
> vendors side?

Dear Maven team,

Would it help you to make the decision if you have usage statistics of JDK
17 among IntelliJ IDEA Maven users?

-- 
Nikita Skvortsov
Software Developer
JetBrains
http://www.jetbrains.com
The Drive to Develop


ср, 31 мая 2023 г. в 11:43, Romain Manni-Bucau :

> Do we have some download stats (not a poll) - maybe on sdkman or some jdk
> vendors side?
> Recently I saw (with customers I'm working on) the java 17 adoption being
> quite large and since people stucked to 3.9 will be covered for java 8 I
> think it could be sane to switch *master* if we can validate with actual
> figures (with little bias) that java 17 is >= 50% (being said the forward
> way is it will only increase).
>
> Side note: I'm not sure toolchain workaround is of any help there since the
> main case will likely stay "use the contextual one and I don't have others
> to offer you".
>
> So overall, if we can find some convergence that java 17 is getting widely
> adopted I would be to switch now fo rmaven 4 without any toolchain hack.
>
> Romain Manni-Bucau
> @rmannibucau  |  Blog
>  | Old Blog
>  | Github <
> https://github.com/rmannibucau> |
> LinkedIn  | Book
> <
> https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance
> >
>
>
> Le mer. 31 mai 2023 à 11:21, Michael Osipov  a écrit
> :
>
> > > I think with those improvements, requiring JDK 17 for master should be
> > > doable.  Any concerns of suggestions ?
> >
> > I am against this. There are enough people who cannot move to Java 17 for
> > a plethora of reasons regardless of Toolchains support. We provide a low
> > level tool and it should have a low barrier to use. Maven 4 should be
> used
> > as a transitional version to 5 to cut old ties and solve many issues --
> > even if we are in alpha phase now.
> > I bet many people will stick for 3.9.x or even 3.8.x for the years to
> come.
> >
> > M
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> >
> >
>

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

[Elliotte Rusty Harold]

On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 10:37 AM Guillaume Nodet  wrote:

>
> Who said so ?  If there's a need and will to maintain the 3.x branch, so be
> it.  No one is forbidden to work on those branches.

That's not really true. Short of a complete fork, new versions can't
go out without effort from PMC members. Users cannot effectively
self-serve here.

-- 
Elliotte Rusty Harold
elh...@ibiblio.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

[Elliotte Rusty Harold]

On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 8:30 AM Guillaume Nodet  wrote:

> I think with those improvements, requiring JDK 17 for master should be
> doable.  Any concerns of suggestions ?

Hard no from me. JDK 8 is still very much in use, and is my day-to-day
VM. I switch to 11 when I have to, and I don't anticipate switching to
17 for years unless I decide to write another book.

When I left Google and GCP about a year ago, we still had customer
requirements for quite old versions. From the public docs it looks
like they still support Java 8 and sometimes Java 7.

I know of multiple companies where the migration to Java 11 is still
in progress. Some companies are also sticking to Java 8 for likely the
remainder of my career. JPMS in Java 9 caused a lot of problems for
weakly supported libraries and many devs can't or won't upgrade past
Java 8 for that reason.

Slow and steady wins the race. Java 8 is a perfectly fine VM, and
Maven really doesn't need anything more right now. I think we'll get
to Java 11 eventually. but that's still a few years down the road and
there's a lot of cleanup work to be done first. Just today I sent a PR
to replace some utility methods we haven't needed since Java *1.4*.
When there's some improvement we really can't make without updating to
Java 11 is when we should consider switching. So far I don't see any
critical need for it though.

-- 
Elliotte Rusty Harold
elh...@ibiblio.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Maven Release Plugin version 3.0.1

[Elliotte Rusty Harold]

FYI, there seem to be some issues with dependabot configs. It's useful
when it fires, but it doesn't always, and sometimes it closes update
PRs for no valid reason I can discern.

And of course there are the more complex updates that can require more
than a simple number change in a pom.xml like
https://github.com/apache/maven-surefire/pull/652 which I still
haven't fully debugged

On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 11:25 AM Jeremy Landis  wrote:
>
> Common thread I keep seeing.  Update all the libraries!  ...the common 
> thread..   No concern on this one but maven does still release vulnerable 
> plugin usage especially around transient commons collections.  We keep 
> patching so it's also frustrating the speed of plugin releases that are not 
> accounting for already available pull requests only to see core team make 
> this argument each release recently...
>
> I think in general, same I tell my devs. Review the bot pull requests and 
> incorporate all the ones possible before any release.
>
> Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
> Get Outlook for Android
> 
> From: Elliotte Rusty Harold 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 7:09:22 AM
> To: Maven Developers List 
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Maven Release Plugin version 3.0.1
>
> One minor dependency update to maven-scm:
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fmaven-release%2Fpull%2F192=05%7C01%7C%7Cd62172d30703417bea4008db61c7aba5%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638211282439154797%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=N%2B3ESphp2RdNQUw0Lmr1s41MrdDcFVth7rpvJJCVxjM%3D=0
>
> Otherwise, looks good.
>
> On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 9:35 PM Slawomir Jaranowski
>  wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > We solved 8 issues:
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fissues.apache.org%2Fjira%2Fsecure%2FReleaseNote.jspa%3FprojectId%3D12317824%26version%3D12353136=05%7C01%7C%7Cd62172d30703417bea4008db61c7aba5%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638211282439154797%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=K0PqT3u1i%2BnCyjtXTFaeS5B%2Bf%2FkYtZbCuQGaZLHIANY%3D=0
> >
> > There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA:
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fissues.apache.org%2Fjira%2Fissues%2F%3Fjql%3Dproject%2520%253D%2520MRELEASE%2520AND%2520resolution%2520%253D%2520Unresolved=05%7C01%7C%7Cd62172d30703417bea4008db61c7aba5%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638211282439154797%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=oWlIcdjMAesuCqZJji1g38cVL8mo8rTo47TjNZrdzQw%3D=0
> >
> >
> > Staging repo:
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frepository.apache.org%2Fcontent%2Frepositories%2Fmaven-1950%2F=05%7C01%7C%7Cd62172d30703417bea4008db61c7aba5%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638211282439154797%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=lvgqlqCAjzalGHn96QSFkchLbh5MyTU9c8Cyo4B%2BN08%3D=0
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frepository.apache.org%2Fcontent%2Frepositories%2Fmaven-1950%2Forg%2Fapache%2Fmaven%2Frelease%2Fmaven-release%2F3.0.1%2Fmaven-release-3.0.1-source-release.zip=05%7C01%7C%7Cd62172d30703417bea4008db61c7aba5%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638211282439154797%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=YTkPBYdoTpceNk8Zxy296APUndozmceHfzQ7NwzcThg%3D=0
> >
> > Source release checksum(s):
> > maven-release-3.0.1-source-release.zip - SHA-512:
> > e59018a70e67f8af38f4d02bc28703f54ec01d032bd9d21972d087bb196ed8997040da0600a687d5604ebed794ab444d67b697ae17f793f0e8908a4ca0a37f69
> >
> >
> > Staging site:
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaven.apache.org%2Fcomponents%2Fmaven-release-archives%2Fmaven-release-LATEST=05%7C01%7C%7Cd62172d30703417bea4008db61c7aba5%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638211282439154797%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=cJSBpS5K1UcmitC%2BlKYuqZpDjOGm%2F4LJ5bc8Fi9tb20%3D=0
> >
> > Guide to testing staged releases:
> > 

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Maven Release Plugin version 3.0.1

[Jeremy Landis]

Common thread I keep seeing.  Update all the libraries!  ...the common thread.. 
  No concern on this one but maven does still release vulnerable plugin usage 
especially around transient commons collections.  We keep patching so it's also 
frustrating the speed of plugin releases that are not accounting for already 
available pull requests only to see core team make this argument each release 
recently...

I think in general, same I tell my devs. Review the bot pull requests and 
incorporate all the ones possible before any release.

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Get Outlook for Android

From: Elliotte Rusty Harold 
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 7:09:22 AM
To: Maven Developers List 
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Maven Release Plugin version 3.0.1

One minor dependency update to maven-scm:
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Fmaven-release%2Fpull%2F192=05%7C01%7C%7Cd62172d30703417bea4008db61c7aba5%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638211282439154797%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=N%2B3ESphp2RdNQUw0Lmr1s41MrdDcFVth7rpvJJCVxjM%3D=0

Otherwise, looks good.

On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 9:35 PM Slawomir Jaranowski
 wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We solved 8 issues:
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fissues.apache.org%2Fjira%2Fsecure%2FReleaseNote.jspa%3FprojectId%3D12317824%26version%3D12353136=05%7C01%7C%7Cd62172d30703417bea4008db61c7aba5%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638211282439154797%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=K0PqT3u1i%2BnCyjtXTFaeS5B%2Bf%2FkYtZbCuQGaZLHIANY%3D=0
>
> There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA:
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fissues.apache.org%2Fjira%2Fissues%2F%3Fjql%3Dproject%2520%253D%2520MRELEASE%2520AND%2520resolution%2520%253D%2520Unresolved=05%7C01%7C%7Cd62172d30703417bea4008db61c7aba5%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638211282439154797%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=oWlIcdjMAesuCqZJji1g38cVL8mo8rTo47TjNZrdzQw%3D=0
>
>
> Staging repo:
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frepository.apache.org%2Fcontent%2Frepositories%2Fmaven-1950%2F=05%7C01%7C%7Cd62172d30703417bea4008db61c7aba5%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638211282439154797%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=lvgqlqCAjzalGHn96QSFkchLbh5MyTU9c8Cyo4B%2BN08%3D=0
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Frepository.apache.org%2Fcontent%2Frepositories%2Fmaven-1950%2Forg%2Fapache%2Fmaven%2Frelease%2Fmaven-release%2F3.0.1%2Fmaven-release-3.0.1-source-release.zip=05%7C01%7C%7Cd62172d30703417bea4008db61c7aba5%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638211282439154797%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=YTkPBYdoTpceNk8Zxy296APUndozmceHfzQ7NwzcThg%3D=0
>
> Source release checksum(s):
> maven-release-3.0.1-source-release.zip - SHA-512:
> e59018a70e67f8af38f4d02bc28703f54ec01d032bd9d21972d087bb196ed8997040da0600a687d5604ebed794ab444d67b697ae17f793f0e8908a4ca0a37f69
>
>
> Staging site:
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaven.apache.org%2Fcomponents%2Fmaven-release-archives%2Fmaven-release-LATEST=05%7C01%7C%7Cd62172d30703417bea4008db61c7aba5%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638211282439154797%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=cJSBpS5K1UcmitC%2BlKYuqZpDjOGm%2F4LJ5bc8Fi9tb20%3D=0
>
> Guide to testing staged releases:
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaven.apache.org%2Fguides%2Fdevelopment%2Fguide-testing-releases.html=05%7C01%7C%7Cd62172d30703417bea4008db61c7aba5%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C638211282439154797%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C=UQgW4ZDiIOZp16XxdvpWvoYu4eBXRxbTOLH4ZcYRQnQ%3D=0
>
> Vote open for at least 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1
>

Re: [HEADS UP] Upcoming Resolver and Maven releases

[Tamás Cservenák]

Henning,

This intent of all threads (the "[HEADS UP]") that I have been creating
since the 3.9.0 release was actually meant as a communication effort to
users not on ML (btw, see related comm related discussions). What I usually
do is copy the ponymail URL of the thread and post it on twitter or
mastodon etc.
People not on ML are still eager to be "in the loop", to get the news about
3.9.x just like you might be.

While I understand your frustration about these threads (probably noise to
you), please understand the intent behind these threads it as well.

Thanks
T



On Sun, May 28, 2023 at 10:58 PM Henning Schmiedehausen <
henn...@schmiedehausen.org> wrote:

> You spend so much time on ceremony and bureaucracy by filing tickets that
> no one is going to pick up or read and then creating pull requests that at
> best will be glanced at and then "LGTM"ed.
>
> This is a trivial, non-controversial change that any committer can just
> commit. Worst case scenario, someone else is going to comment on it and
> then it can be iterated. That is how Apache has always worked and why CTR
> is more efficient with a small team. Every committer is explicitly trusted
> to work on the code base without constant "there needs to be a ticket.
> there needs to be a PR. there needs to be a week of discussion whether that
> change is good. there needs to be "approval" or "majority agreement" by
> some star chamber that can decide what is good for the project.
>
> Reserve the ceremony and discussion for the large, gnarly, controversial
> changes that warrant discussion and where there is value in doing more
> upfront planning. But for god's sake, stop doing ceremony for ceremony's
> sake.
>
> It is a literal one-liner. - https://github.com/apache/maven/pull/1132
>
> -h
>
>
> On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 1:24 PM Tamás Cservenák 
> wrote:
>
> > Howdy,
> >
> > good call, created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-7797
> >
> > Thanks
> > T
> >
> > On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 10:09 PM Henning Schmiedehausen <
> > henn...@schmiedehausen.org> wrote:
> >
> > > maven 3.9.2:
> > >
> > > mvn -DskipTests -Dmaven.plugin.validation=BRIEF -pl :jdbi3-core clean
> > > install
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > current 3.9.3-SNAPSHOT:
> > >
> > > mvn -DskipTests -Dmaven.plugin.validation=BRIEF -pl :jdbi3-core clean
> > > install
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > *[WARNING] Invalid value specified for property
> maven.plugin.validation:
> > > 'BRIEF'. Supported values are (case insensitive): [NONE, INLINE,
> SUMMARY,
> > > VERBOSE]*
> > >
> > > You shipped "BRIEF" in 3.9.2, removing it now breaks scripts that added
> > > this to the command line or the pom.
> > >
> > > I suggest mapping "BRIEF" to "SUMMARY".
> > >
> > > -h
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 12:46 AM Tamás Cservenák 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Howdy,
> > > >
> > > > Resolver 1.9.11 is shaping:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20MRESOLVER%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.9.11
> > > >
> > > > one resolver issue under scrutiny:
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MRESOLVER-362
> > > >
> > > > Maven 3.9.3 as well:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20MNG%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%203.9.3
> > > >
> > > > As usual, I plan these for next week, so if anyone has anything to
> say,
> > > > speak up!
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > T
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

[Jeremy Landis]

+1 on java 17.  Stats matter but can tell you we are 90% jdk 17 on builds 
already, don't use toolchains. It's unnecessary.  A lot of it is education to 
development staff that Devops must push and enable teams.  Maven could help 
drive that here...

As to comment on 3.8 vs 3.9.  We already dropped 3.8 in mass.  We allowed both 
until docker containers were updated.  Once done we blocked 3.8 outright for 
3.9.1 or better.  Expect same with maven 4.  And further any plugins out of 
100s we use, if not there we will fork them.

With spring forcing 17 far too soon and spring boot still stating the intend to 
drop all old support in November, developers are being forced.

So back to maven, why struggle with old coding patterns when java offers so 
many enhancements that are otherwise missed?

And stats matter.  What's the pull numbers from sonatype show?  Growth pattern 
at all yet?  I'd say once the tipping point is seen, move.  And keep in mind 
big companies hide their full usage so it's hard-to-get real stats.

And finally, I see no point to those that choose to stay on legacy.  I bet in 
their cases libraries are not maintained either but that shouldn't be 
everyone's problem.  Provide a clear path and cater more towards those that 
care.

We have 20 year old java products working on jdk 20 now too...so it's not a 
difficult ask.  Just need guidance on how...

Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Get Outlook for Android

From: Guillaume Nodet 
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2023 6:37:12 AM
To: Maven Developers List 
Subject: Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

Le mer. 31 mai 2023 à 12:28, Michael Osipov  a écrit :

> On 2023/05/31 10:03:34 Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> > Le mer. 31 mai 2023 à 11:21, Michael Osipov  a
> écrit :
> >
> > > > I think with those improvements, requiring JDK 17 for master should
> be
> > > > doable.  Any concerns of suggestions ?
> > >
> > > I am against this. There are enough people who cannot move to Java 17
> for
> > > a plethora of reasons regardless of Toolchains support. We provide a
> low
> > > level tool and it should have a low barrier to use. Maven 4 should be
> used
> > > as a transitional version to 5 to cut old ties and solve many issues --
> > > even if we are in alpha phase now.
> > > I bet many people will stick for 3.9.x or even 3.8.x for the years to
> come.
> > >
> >
> > I don't get the argument here.  If people can stick with old versions of
> > maven, this is actually an argument for moving the next releases forward,
> > because that won't be a problem for them.
>
> If Maven 4 will be the only option for them since 3.x won't be maintained
> anymore then this is a problem for many.
>

Who said so ?  If there's a need and will to maintain the 3.x branch, so be
it.  No one is forbidden to work on those branches.


>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>
>

--

Guillaume Nodet

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Maven Release Plugin version 3.0.1

[Elliotte Rusty Harold]

One minor dependency update to maven-scm:
https://github.com/apache/maven-release/pull/192

Otherwise, looks good.

On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 9:35 PM Slawomir Jaranowski
 wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We solved 8 issues:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12317824=12353136
>
> There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20MRELEASE%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved
>
>
> Staging repo:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-1950/
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-1950/org/apache/maven/release/maven-release/3.0.1/maven-release-3.0.1-source-release.zip
>
> Source release checksum(s):
> maven-release-3.0.1-source-release.zip - SHA-512:
> e59018a70e67f8af38f4d02bc28703f54ec01d032bd9d21972d087bb196ed8997040da0600a687d5604ebed794ab444d67b697ae17f793f0e8908a4ca0a37f69
>
>
> Staging site:
> https://maven.apache.org/components/maven-release-archives/maven-release-LATEST
>
> Guide to testing staged releases:
> https://maven.apache.org/guides/development/guide-testing-releases.html
>
> Vote open for at least 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1
>
> --
> Sławomir Jaranowski



-- 
Elliotte Rusty Harold
elh...@ibiblio.org

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

[Guillaume Nodet]

Le mer. 31 mai 2023 à 12:28, Michael Osipov  a écrit :

> On 2023/05/31 10:03:34 Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> > Le mer. 31 mai 2023 à 11:21, Michael Osipov  a
> écrit :
> >
> > > > I think with those improvements, requiring JDK 17 for master should
> be
> > > > doable.  Any concerns of suggestions ?
> > >
> > > I am against this. There are enough people who cannot move to Java 17
> for
> > > a plethora of reasons regardless of Toolchains support. We provide a
> low
> > > level tool and it should have a low barrier to use. Maven 4 should be
> used
> > > as a transitional version to 5 to cut old ties and solve many issues --
> > > even if we are in alpha phase now.
> > > I bet many people will stick for 3.9.x or even 3.8.x for the years to
> come.
> > >
> >
> > I don't get the argument here.  If people can stick with old versions of
> > maven, this is actually an argument for moving the next releases forward,
> > because that won't be a problem for them.
>
> If Maven 4 will be the only option for them since 3.x won't be maintained
> anymore then this is a problem for many.
>

Who said so ?  If there's a need and will to maintain the 3.x branch, so be
it.  No one is forbidden to work on those branches.


>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>
>

-- 

Guillaume Nodet

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

[Michael Osipov]

On 2023/05/31 10:03:34 Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> Le mer. 31 mai 2023 à 11:21, Michael Osipov  a écrit :
> 
> > > I think with those improvements, requiring JDK 17 for master should be
> > > doable.  Any concerns of suggestions ?
> >
> > I am against this. There are enough people who cannot move to Java 17 for
> > a plethora of reasons regardless of Toolchains support. We provide a low
> > level tool and it should have a low barrier to use. Maven 4 should be used
> > as a transitional version to 5 to cut old ties and solve many issues --
> > even if we are in alpha phase now.
> > I bet many people will stick for 3.9.x or even 3.8.x for the years to come.
> >
> 
> I don't get the argument here.  If people can stick with old versions of
> maven, this is actually an argument for moving the next releases forward,
> because that won't be a problem for them.

If Maven 4 will be the only option for them since 3.x won't be maintained 
anymore then this is a problem for many. 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

[Tamás Cservenák]

On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 11:22 AM Michael Osipov  wrote:

> I am against this. There are enough people who cannot move to Java 17 for
> a plethora of reasons regardless of Toolchains support. We provide a low
> level tool and it should have a low barrier to use. Maven 4 should be used
> as a transitional version to 5 to cut old ties and solve many issues --
> even if we are in alpha phase now.
> I bet many people will stick for 3.9.x or even 3.8.x for the years to come.
>

That's fine, it's their decision to do so.

T

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

[Mark Derricutt]

 On 31/05/2023 at 9:21:43 PM, Michael Osipov  wrote:

> even if we are in alpha phase now.
> I bet many people will stick for 3.9.x or even 3.8.x for the years to
> come.


Yep - unless 4.x can introduce some hook for extensions to modify the POM
model before becoming immutable, I don’t see us moving beyond for a long
time (or anyone else now using our tiles-maven-plugin - which I’ve
unfortunately not really had a chance to dive into seeing if/how we could
rework it to support M4).

Mark

-- 
"Great artists are extremely selfish and arrogant things" — Steven Wilson,
Porcupine Tree

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

[Guillaume Nodet]

Le mer. 31 mai 2023 à 11:21, Michael Osipov  a écrit :

> > I think with those improvements, requiring JDK 17 for master should be
> > doable.  Any concerns of suggestions ?
>
> I am against this. There are enough people who cannot move to Java 17 for
> a plethora of reasons regardless of Toolchains support. We provide a low
> level tool and it should have a low barrier to use. Maven 4 should be used
> as a transitional version to 5 to cut old ties and solve many issues --
> even if we are in alpha phase now.
> I bet many people will stick for 3.9.x or even 3.8.x for the years to come.
>

I don't get the argument here.  If people can stick with old versions of
maven, this is actually an argument for moving the next releases forward,
because that won't be a problem for them.


>
> M
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>
>

-- 

Guillaume Nodet

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

[Tamás Cservenák]

+1 for the move to Java 17 with Maven 4 (am actually for "move to latest
current Java LTS")

As anyone can see, all the major (OSS) projects did or are in the middle of
pushing for Java 17.
In September we have Java 21. The Java release cadence has changed, and it
did not change yesterday, but a long time ago, so users should live with it.

T

On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 10:30 AM Guillaume Nodet  wrote:

> I'd like to resume this discussion about switching master to require JDK
> 17.
>
> These past days, I've been working on improving the usage of toolchains
> (first inside maven, but now completely in the maven-toolchains-plugin)
> with [1].  If we want to go further, we could simplify the selection by
> modifying the POM somehow to add a specific section, but I suspect most
> people will just use the release flag on the compiler to target bytecode.
> The only downside I see, beyond the additional configuration (though the
> goal is that users don't really have to generate/maintain the toolchains)
> is that the selection of the toolchain is done during the build, so that
> JDK profile based activation can not be used.  Note that the use of
> environment variables is also another way to work around, for example in
> github [2].
>
> I think with those improvements, requiring JDK 17 for master should be
> doable.  Any concerns of suggestions ?
>
> Cheers,
> Guillaume
>
> [1] https://github.com/apache/maven-toolchains-plugin/pull/14
> [2]
>
> https://github.com/B3Partners/kadaster-gds2/blob/b0cd5c392bc1f48dec11c83c828254a868264467/.github/ubuntu-toolchains.xml
>
> Le mar. 19 juil. 2022 à 18:25, Karl Heinz Marbaise  a
> écrit :
>
> > Hi to all,
> >
> > what do you think about using JDK17 as minimum requirement for running
> > the future Apache Maven 4.0.0 ?
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Karl Heinz Marbaise
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> --
> 
> Guillaume Nodet
>

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

[Romain Manni-Bucau]

Do we have some download stats (not a poll) - maybe on sdkman or some jdk
vendors side?
Recently I saw (with customers I'm working on) the java 17 adoption being
quite large and since people stucked to 3.9 will be covered for java 8 I
think it could be sane to switch *master* if we can validate with actual
figures (with little bias) that java 17 is >= 50% (being said the forward
way is it will only increase).

Side note: I'm not sure toolchain workaround is of any help there since the
main case will likely stay "use the contextual one and I don't have others
to offer you".

So overall, if we can find some convergence that java 17 is getting widely
adopted I would be to switch now fo rmaven 4 without any toolchain hack.

Romain Manni-Bucau
@rmannibucau  |  Blog
 | Old Blog
 | Github  |
LinkedIn  | Book



Le mer. 31 mai 2023 à 11:21, Michael Osipov  a écrit :

> > I think with those improvements, requiring JDK 17 for master should be
> > doable.  Any concerns of suggestions ?
>
> I am against this. There are enough people who cannot move to Java 17 for
> a plethora of reasons regardless of Toolchains support. We provide a low
> level tool and it should have a low barrier to use. Maven 4 should be used
> as a transitional version to 5 to cut old ties and solve many issues --
> even if we are in alpha phase now.
> I bet many people will stick for 3.9.x or even 3.8.x for the years to come.
>
> M
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>
>

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

[Michael Osipov]

> I think with those improvements, requiring JDK 17 for master should be
> doable.  Any concerns of suggestions ?

I am against this. There are enough people who cannot move to Java 17 for a 
plethora of reasons regardless of Toolchains support. We provide a low level 
tool and it should have a low barrier to use. Maven 4 should be used as a 
transitional version to 5 to cut old ties and solve many issues -- even if we 
are in alpha phase now.
I bet many people will stick for 3.9.x or even 3.8.x for the years to come.

M

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Maven Release Plugin version 3.0.1

[Tamás Cservenák]

+1

On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 11:35 PM Slawomir Jaranowski 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> We solved 8 issues:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12317824=12353136
>
> There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20MRELEASE%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved
>
>
> Staging repo:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-1950/
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-1950/org/apache/maven/release/maven-release/3.0.1/maven-release-3.0.1-source-release.zip
>
> Source release checksum(s):
> maven-release-3.0.1-source-release.zip - SHA-512:
>
> e59018a70e67f8af38f4d02bc28703f54ec01d032bd9d21972d087bb196ed8997040da0600a687d5604ebed794ab444d67b697ae17f793f0e8908a4ca0a37f69
>
>
> Staging site:
>
> https://maven.apache.org/components/maven-release-archives/maven-release-LATEST
>
> Guide to testing staged releases:
> https://maven.apache.org/guides/development/guide-testing-releases.html
>
> Vote open for at least 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1
>
> --
> Sławomir Jaranowski
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Maven Release Plugin version 3.0.1

[Maarten Mulders]

+1 - tested on macOS using Maven 3.9.2 with a custom release strategy.


Maarten

On 30/05/2023 23:34, Slawomir Jaranowski wrote:

Hi,

We solved 8 issues:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12317824=12353136

There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20MRELEASE%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved


Staging repo:
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-1950/
https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-1950/org/apache/maven/release/maven-release/3.0.1/maven-release-3.0.1-source-release.zip

Source release checksum(s):
maven-release-3.0.1-source-release.zip - SHA-512:
e59018a70e67f8af38f4d02bc28703f54ec01d032bd9d21972d087bb196ed8997040da0600a687d5604ebed794ab444d67b697ae17f793f0e8908a4ca0a37f69


Staging site:
https://maven.apache.org/components/maven-release-archives/maven-release-LATEST

Guide to testing staged releases:
https://maven.apache.org/guides/development/guide-testing-releases.html

Vote open for at least 72 hours.

[ ] +1
[ ] +0
[ ] -1



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: Question - JDK Minimum of future Apache Maven 4.0.0

[Guillaume Nodet]

I'd like to resume this discussion about switching master to require JDK 17.

These past days, I've been working on improving the usage of toolchains
(first inside maven, but now completely in the maven-toolchains-plugin)
with [1].  If we want to go further, we could simplify the selection by
modifying the POM somehow to add a specific section, but I suspect most
people will just use the release flag on the compiler to target bytecode.
The only downside I see, beyond the additional configuration (though the
goal is that users don't really have to generate/maintain the toolchains)
is that the selection of the toolchain is done during the build, so that
JDK profile based activation can not be used.  Note that the use of
environment variables is also another way to work around, for example in
github [2].

I think with those improvements, requiring JDK 17 for master should be
doable.  Any concerns of suggestions ?

Cheers,
Guillaume

[1] https://github.com/apache/maven-toolchains-plugin/pull/14
[2]
https://github.com/B3Partners/kadaster-gds2/blob/b0cd5c392bc1f48dec11c83c828254a868264467/.github/ubuntu-toolchains.xml

Le mar. 19 juil. 2022 à 18:25, Karl Heinz Marbaise  a
écrit :

> Hi to all,
>
> what do you think about using JDK17 as minimum requirement for running
> the future Apache Maven 4.0.0 ?
>
> Kind regards
> Karl Heinz Marbaise
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org
>
>

-- 

Guillaume Nodet

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Maven Release Plugin version 3.0.1

[Sylwester Lachiewicz]

+1

wt., 30 maj 2023, 23:35 użytkownik Slawomir Jaranowski <
s.jaranow...@gmail.com> napisał:

> Hi,
>
> We solved 8 issues:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12317824=12353136
>
> There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20MRELEASE%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved
>
>
> Staging repo:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-1950/
>
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-1950/org/apache/maven/release/maven-release/3.0.1/maven-release-3.0.1-source-release.zip
>
> Source release checksum(s):
> maven-release-3.0.1-source-release.zip - SHA-512:
>
> e59018a70e67f8af38f4d02bc28703f54ec01d032bd9d21972d087bb196ed8997040da0600a687d5604ebed794ab444d67b697ae17f793f0e8908a4ca0a37f69
>
>
> Staging site:
>
> https://maven.apache.org/components/maven-release-archives/maven-release-LATEST
>
> Guide to testing staged releases:
> https://maven.apache.org/guides/development/guide-testing-releases.html
>
> Vote open for at least 72 hours.
>
> [ ] +1
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1
>
> --
> Sławomir Jaranowski
>

Re: [VOTE] Release Apache Maven Release Plugin version 3.0.1

[Herve Boutemy]

+1

Reproducible Builds ok: reference build done with JDK 17 on *nix

Regards,

Hervé

On 2023/05/30 21:34:37 Slawomir Jaranowski wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> We solved 8 issues:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ReleaseNote.jspa?projectId=12317824=12353136
> 
> There are still a couple of issues left in JIRA:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20MRELEASE%20AND%20resolution%20%3D%20Unresolved
> 
> 
> Staging repo:
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-1950/
> https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/maven-1950/org/apache/maven/release/maven-release/3.0.1/maven-release-3.0.1-source-release.zip
> 
> Source release checksum(s):
> maven-release-3.0.1-source-release.zip - SHA-512:
> e59018a70e67f8af38f4d02bc28703f54ec01d032bd9d21972d087bb196ed8997040da0600a687d5604ebed794ab444d67b697ae17f793f0e8908a4ca0a37f69
> 
> 
> Staging site:
> https://maven.apache.org/components/maven-release-archives/maven-release-LATEST
> 
> Guide to testing staged releases:
> https://maven.apache.org/guides/development/guide-testing-releases.html
> 
> Vote open for at least 72 hours.
> 
> [ ] +1
> [ ] +0
> [ ] -1
> 
> -- 
> Sławomir Jaranowski
> 

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org

Re: [HEADS UP] Upcoming Resolver and Maven releases

[Slawomir Jaranowski]

Hi,

With validation=summary when only EXTERNAL issue are presents we have:

[WARNING]
[WARNING] Plugin [INTERNAL] validation issues were detected in following
plugin(s)
[WARNING]
[WARNING]
[WARNING] For more or less details, use 'maven.plugin.validation' property
with one of the values (case insensitive): [NONE, INLINE, SUMMARY, VERBOSE]


What do you think about the SUMMARY display also EXTERNAL and missing BRIEF
only INTERNAL?

pt., 26 maj 2023 o 23:03 Tamás Cservenák  napisał(a):

> Draft:
> https://github.com/apache/maven-site/pull/424
>
> T
>
> On Fri, May 26, 2023, 22:23 Tamás Cservenák  wrote:
>
> > Howdy,
> >
> > good call, created https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MNG-7797
> >
> > Thanks
> > T
> >
> > On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 10:09 PM Henning Schmiedehausen <
> > henn...@schmiedehausen.org> wrote:
> >
> >> maven 3.9.2:
> >>
> >> mvn -DskipTests -Dmaven.plugin.validation=BRIEF -pl :jdbi3-core clean
> >> install
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> current 3.9.3-SNAPSHOT:
> >>
> >> mvn -DskipTests -Dmaven.plugin.validation=BRIEF -pl :jdbi3-core clean
> >> install
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> *[WARNING] Invalid value specified for property maven.plugin.validation:
> >> 'BRIEF'. Supported values are (case insensitive): [NONE, INLINE,
> SUMMARY,
> >> VERBOSE]*
> >>
> >> You shipped "BRIEF" in 3.9.2, removing it now breaks scripts that added
> >> this to the command line or the pom.
> >>
> >> I suggest mapping "BRIEF" to "SUMMARY".
> >>
> >> -h
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 12:46 AM Tamás Cservenák 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Howdy,
> >> >
> >> > Resolver 1.9.11 is shaping:
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20MRESOLVER%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%201.9.11
> >> >
> >> > one resolver issue under scrutiny:
> >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MRESOLVER-362
> >> >
> >> > Maven 3.9.3 as well:
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project%20%3D%20MNG%20AND%20fixVersion%20%3D%203.9.3
> >> >
> >> > As usual, I plan these for next week, so if anyone has anything to
> say,
> >> > speak up!
> >> >
> >> > Thanks
> >> > T
> >> >
> >>
> >
>


-- 
Sławomir Jaranowski